The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-12-23
Prima EacIe Again.

TO the Editor ofthe Press;
Begging PAL don for contradictlng you, certain
ly did not fail to meet the point in my last com
munication. Among your criticisms Of my previ-
Gus article. you said in substance, "Thls viii not
do, because the Supreme Court has decided that
In civil cases in which violation Of the crimina
law Is charged, the same rule applies as IN erimL
nal cases" My reply was that that decision had
been oyerruled, and is no longer law, and quot
ed the law directly opposite to your statement Of
1t. When can "meet point in that way, am
content.
You say that had attempted to reconcile my
Interpretation of the statute with Judge Bonney's
ruling in the Guppy case; in this also, you are in
error said that what Interpretation Judge Bon
ney will give to the law when the question arises
before him on the trial OF an indictment, remains
to be SEEM and l say so now.
Allow me to say also that your method Of rea-
soning upon the statements OF judges In par ticu-
lar cases is not in accordance with the rules which
Judges endeavor to follow In my judgment, for
example, YOU have done Judge WhitehOuse inIus-
tice In the construction you put upon one part Of
his charge. They endeavor to confne themselves
to the particular cose BEFORE them aud give De
csion upon thefdcts Of that ease. They intend 10
be responsible only for the precise proposition an
nOunced. HVereAces as To what they might decide
upon different state Of facts, are not authorized
and are not legitimate. Judge WhitehOuse said:
1T [the eerrfcatel is fact for you TO consider,
and In connection with circumstances surround
ing the premises Of the defendant, You may say
that II Is sufficient" From this you infer that
Judge WhitehOuse held that. without the other
circumstance" the Jury were not authorized to
saw the certificate was sufficient. You have no
right 20 draw any such inference, and IN giving
your Inference as what he said, Ia my judgment
you do the Judge uHintentiona Injustice.
1t should also be remembered IN connection
With the Guppy ease, that because tile State can
not carry ease TO the Law Court, judges often
rule against the respondent, especially irhea me
question inroiCes The construction Of nelg stdt-
ute, without regard 10 their own views.
We are drifting somewhat from the original
subject Of discussion. In my communicative TO
the Advertiser, out Of which this discussion has
grown, made substantially three propositions:
l. That the law In question IS not uneonstitu-
tiOnal.
2. That II Is not a new kind Of law but one
well known aud having "a settled construction,
especially IN the United States Courts.
3. That that construction IS that the evidence
IN question is sufficient TO authorize conviction,
and that the statute does not undertake 10 require
q conviction.
4. That this construction was well understood
by many membersof the Legislature, so that II
intenued 70 make the evidence conclusive, or 90
require a conviction, II the evidence was not re-
hnlted.
The third proposition is the only one of practi-
cal importance, and as you announced that you
must wait for the decision Of the Law Court IN
relation TO that, saw no occasion for any reply
except to correct an error into which you had
inadvertently fallen as to the rule Of law In GER
tain civil cases. j. Ill. ID.